tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN December 29, 2016 4:00pm-6:01pm EST
in the right wing world of discussion among themselves. liberals and the establishment called for apologies, but donald trump said time and again, we are saying what is on our minds. for the establishment folks who do not like it, that is just political correctness. let me describe the state of opinion he encountered in the far right media. first, the democrats. first the democrats. the long standing against the liberal elite going back to at least pat buchanan was not only alive and thriving, it had taken a new dimension since the obama presidency. race became the subtext of projections like the famous accusation that obama hates white people.
birtherism created open season. he was a foreigner, therefore an illegitimate president. he was a muslim. as late as september, 2015, 43% of republicans nationally believed obama was a secret muslim. according to a cnn survey. 43%. and muslims were the new enemy to the u.s. they were fighting the u.s. not only abroad but at home thraw terrorism. increasing shaharya law and obama was on their side. he and the democrats were betraying america. i'll try to give you a picture of what was being said in a kind of taken for granted way in this world. the feeling was that they, the real americans, were living under occupation. in the summer of 2015, the
sighss of the u.s. mill fri in the southwest were widely seen as an attempt to impose martial law in red states like texas. but it was opinion on the populace right about the republican party establishment that was trump's most significant discovery. there, too, resentment had been simmering. in 2008 and 2012 the canned dasies of huckabee, hoffman, kane, santorum, and others had been defeated, the populace thought, by the might of the republican establishment. the winning establishment candidates were rhinos. republicans in name only. they doomed the party to defeat. only a real conservative, the populace believed, someone like them, could lead the party to victory. instead, as the head of the tea party nation put it, the forced an establishment
mccain and romney down the populace throat like the central committee of the communist party. yet it was tea party activism they thought with much justification that kept the republican party alive and kicking during the obama years. ea party candidates were winning in state legislators and governorships and turned the house of representatives republican in 2010 and later the senate. they expected results. they expected obama care to be taken down. all they got were dozens of futile resolutions. shots were fired over the bow. the number two in the republican house, eric cantor, of virginia, was taken down at his primary. the house leader john boehner left office. still, the republican establishment was lining up behind jeb bush. the feeling among the base was changing. resentment of the establishment
was being superseded. the world had turned. resentment had given way to a feeling bev trail. a fox news poll in 2016 found 62% of republicans felt betrayed by their parties' office holders. trump made another discovery in his immersion in the far right. a line had been drawn in the sand. there was an issue on which neither side the republican establishment nor the populace base was willing to give an inch. that issue was immigration. from the establishment side the issue was straight forward. the american population was changing rapidly and the republican party was living under a demographic sword of damacleus. following the election the republican national convention commissioned an analysis of why they lost the election. a document commonly called the
autopsy report. without developing support among new immigrant groups in the u.s. the party was doomed in national elections. candidate for president lindsey graham put it in 2015 but if we don't pass immigration reform, if we don't get it off the table in a reasonable, practical way, it doesn't matter who you run in 2016. we're in a demographic dead spiral as a party and the only way we can get back in good graces is with the hispanic community and in my view if you don't pass immigration reform it really doesn't matter who we run, in my view. what this amounts to the establishment view is a threat if we don't expand the party it will cease to exist. counter to this, the loss not of the party but of the
country. of america. that was at stake if immigration was ended and turned around. we could spend a long time parcing through the issues and made s of populism that any give on the immigration question impossible. but for brevity's sake, i quote ann coulter. a very early trump supporter. this is not an election about who can check off the most boxes on a conservative policy list or even about who is the best or nicest person. this is an election about saving the concept of america, an ex-i stention election like no other has ever been. anyone who doesn't grasp this is part of the problem not part of the solution. that these quotes
days. what trump perceived and went forth into was a situation where the republican establishment and the party's ir lace base had become reconcileable. each saw it as a crisis and could give no quarter. arguably the mother text of american right wing studies is richard hoff steader's 1964 paranoid style of american politics." for hoffsteader the condition of being irreconciled is parano american crucial. he writes perhaps the central situation conducive to the paranoid tendency is a confrontation of opposed interests, which are or are felt to be totally irreconcileable and thus by ature not susceptible to the
normal political processes of bargain and compromise. now we normal political come to what i great irony the 2016 election. we all know where trump came down on the contrasting existential views. he didn't merely meet the populace. he raised them like a bettor at a poker table. first he promised to build the wall and condemned mexican immigrants as bringers of criminal and exploited behaviors. he called in short for nothing less than ethnic cleansing. then he buckled down on muslims promising to ban them from entering the country. and he won. both the nomination and the general election. why the great irony? because the calculation of the republican establishment was that without expanding the party's base there could be no national victory and that the early place -- the only place
left to expand the base was an opening to immigrants, above all latinos. trump did the opposite. he alienated immigrants as much as he possibly could. yet, he expanded the base. that is the great irony. there were two major areas of expansion. one was what you could call the star of the election cycle. the white, male working class. and from workers who had become indifferent to elections and were now electrified by the trump campaign. trump had managed to conflict both republican and democratic establishments into a single corrupt entity and present himself as the opposition to a -- to this corrupt, political establishment. is had exceptional appeal to
not only the working class disappointed in the diminishment of life chances but spoke as well to the second new face brought into the trump coalition. this was the most fringe element of the american electorate, the white supremacist, white identity, sometimes neo nazi, sometimes k.k.k. voters. who had not played a direct role in american elections in decades and which now developed an internet identity, internet based identity widely known as the old right. it is no stretch of the imagination to think of how trump's campaign, his no holds barred attacks on people of color, galvanized this fringe. sure, there was the occasional run by the k.k.k. or david duke for office in louisiana, but now, it was somebody talking
their language at the level of presidential politics. trump institutionalized the old right. by august he brought in steven bannon as the strategic head of his campaign. bannon had established himself as the hinge of moving news and conspiracy thinking and what he called pop lift nationalism. one could certainly call it white nationalism. out from fringe -- through drudge, fox news, and finally nto the main stream media. it vulgarized the trumpian message. give you a few examples. he real americans became the
ydentitarians. multi culturalism becomes understood as cultural marxism and multi culturalists as globalists. conservatives. you may ask me about that later. finally, through the institutionalization of the old right in the trump campaign and now in the trump would ration, they introduced tropes of hoary conspiracy theories into the american mix, the likes of which we haven't heard since he 1930's. trump, in one of his speeches in the latter part of the campaign. we've seen first hand in the wikileaks documents, the wikileaks documents in which
hillary clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of u.s. sovereignty. order to enrich global, financial powers, special interests friends and donors. okay. we'll leave it at that. here is trump talking about an international conspiracy of bankers. this is, more or less, directly from the protocols of the elders of zion lacking the word jew. so the republican party coming into office often resembles the far right parties that have power in edge of europe in recent years and who largely have origins with one foot in the era of classical
facism of the 1920's and 1930's. this contrast with the free market, free trade, antiwelfare state conservativism of the republican party since 1980 that paul spoke of, right now, it seems to me an open question, which of these entities is going to govern over the next four years? thank you. [applause] >> okay. for the question-and-answer period we're passing around cards or picking up cards as the case may be.
all right. so i'm going to read these three questions and then i'm going to turn back to the panelists. so one question is, how was the elimination of medicare, obama reduce d lower medicare demand for health care and affect the health care industry? he second question is, why did trump win? and the third question is, with the recent attention given to the french far right candidate, the brexit in england, incursion, and now donald trump's election, does this show a trend to super nationalism which has -- almost always precedes a world war? so, shall i ask our panelists to respond to whichever one of those questions they would like to in turn?
who would like to start? lawrence? lawrence rosenthal: thank you. , e question is, does brexit does the rise of right parties europe, one might add, does the breadth and power of things like putinism, do they indicate a trend in the world? i think that speaks for itself. it is the very definition of a trend. the question i wonder about is what is there that might be a break on that trend? with lier years conservativism, which certainly eemed extreme at the time, i
would say coming into power there was always -- it was always in a funny way reliable that they would over reach themselves. and that they would run into problems within their own communities and their own coalitions that would, over time, undo them. i'm not as sanguine about that painting in the trend toward trumpism and brexitism and so forth, and it's largely because there is, i think, in these movements more of a tendency to change the rules once they're in power and make it more difficult for
the ordinary means, political means of bringing down a weary establishment. they may not be as available as we once have taken them for granted. >> i'll do the wider trump question so you have to do the ealth care question. it seems necessary at this point to remind people that hillary got 2 million plus more votes than trump. i mean, that's the mantra we should hold on to when we wake at 3:00 a.m. depressed. and, you know, i've read lots of analysis how much people liked trump as opposed to people who didn't like hillary. carole joffee: one element of analysis, however, does keep re-emerging, and that is it
looks like the bombshell for lack of a better term really did have an impact. i corneded earlier today with colleagues -- i corresponded earlier today with colleagues saying did you have any data on the basis of how many people voted on the basis of abortion one way or the other and they didn't but my colleague sent me an analysis showing a considerable number of people who made up their minds in the last week. and of those who made up their ind in the last week, more went to trump than went to hillary, so that, clearly, i hink was a factor. too bad it happened. being a partisan for a moment, too bad it happened. also, hillary of course as many for know was criticized not campaigning enough in
wisconsin and michigan, but she was in philadelphia. she was in pennsylvania all the time. and she lost that by more votes -- she lost pennsylvania by 70,000 votes. she lost the others by a combination of 30,000 votes. so all of which is to say there is not one, clear cut argument, but james comey is not my avorite person at this moment. paul pierson: not small questions to answer in a short time. very quick loin health care. the u.s. is a huge outlier on health care across nationally. an outlier in not only providing less coverage but basically spending twice as much for the health care we consume as any other country does. i think the cross national evidence is very clear that the reason for that is because other countries have used government to create count veiling power that can
negotiate prices effectively with health care producers. medicare is the most effective remaining aspect of the american health care system that does that. so the idea that individual consumers or individual insurance companies are going to be able to provide that kind of counterveiling power, i just think there is no evidence for that. so, you know, i think the cross national evidence is just very, very clear on that. again, it's not that americans consume more health care than other countries do. it's that we pay twice as much for the services that are provided. so why did trump win? i agree, comey i think at the end did make the two percentage point difference probably that cost clinton the election but i would say more broadly the media has an enormous amount to answer for. you know, the fact that by the end of the campaign americans were divided about who was more dishonest, hillary clinton or donald trump, i mean, you know, just look at what the fact
checkers said about that. it's not -- it really, to me, is an indication of sort of a deep failure that one should examine on the part of the media and their attempt, i don't know, to prove that they're not partisan or that they're tough on everyone. i don't know exactly what drove that. but i think it was fundamental. i want to just quickly say something about two things i think are deeper explanations for why trump won. one is i think the gradual grounding down among many americans who had previously voted democratic and any belief that democrats were capable of delivering better economic outcomes for them. all right? and i think there are a number f things that fed into that. one is the growth of antigovernment sentiment. a very lop sided argument that's been carried out in american politics over the last 30 years, which is basically -- has basically left most
americans even those who actually do benefit enormously from government's role in various places like medicare or social security or environmental protection, they don't believe it. secondly, democrats are increasingly divided internally. they're a party that is largely funded by the very, very wealthy just like the republicans, a party largely funded by the very, very wealthy. and that, and where unions are a much weaker force than they were a generation ago. and i think there's no question that that is blunted -- has blunted the democrats' ability to produce and convey pop lift economic message. and the last one and i think this is one that really deserves a lot of soul searching, one reason why democrats no longer can convince many of these voters that they have economic solutions to offer for their challenges is because it's not clear what those economic solutions are.
now, do i think democrats are offering a better economic package for working class americans than republicans are? yes, i do. all right? but that's not the same as saying they're offering a good package. and in that, they share the circumstances that every affluent democracy shares, all right, which is that changes in technology, changes in the global economy, have been brutal. for working class citizens, especially those without a college education in this new climate. and that's especially true away from urban areas and the solutions to it are not obvious. all right? so the idea that the democrats just messaged better or handed control of the party over to one faction or another, they would have some great solution? i'm skeptical of that.
carole joffee: one more quick thing about why trump won and it is painful for many of us here. i mean, the gender gap, the euphoria about the first woman president, which many of us in this room i suspect had was not shared widely. the only group of white women that hillary won were college educated white women and she only won them 51/49. i mean, african-american women, latino women voted heavily for hillary. white women didn't. and for many of us that is an extremely painful thing. lawrence rosenthal: to some extent i hope my talk addressed why trump won but i want to throw in at least one other thing, maybe two. , trump hat by the end
had actually developed an extremely sophisticated computerized system of locating voters. remember, in 2012 obama sort of -- his campaign kind of set a tandard for that kind of thing and were largely responsible or the turnout and so forth. this time around, in a way that's not been much discussed, the trump campaign did that. there is a figure called robert mercer, who people may be familiar with. robert mercer is probably the largest donor on the republican side in this election cycle. he begins supporting cruz and then moves over to trump. his daughter, rebecca, is on the transition team. and what -- the way mercer made
his money, and he made a lot of money, was in hedge funds. and he was in the most successful, quantitative hedge und on the planet. and he developed an arm in which he took the technology from that hedge fund, which has stayed ahead of all of its competitors and developed a political arm of it using that technology, using similar technology and there was actually an institution, a company he developed called the came bridge associates -- cambridge associates and they were very effective in -- actually what they did is they brought to bear the kinds of
psychological profiles used in advertising. and brought that to bear using data from the internet. in identifying trump voters and sending precise messages, personalized messages. that's the one thing i want to say. the second thing i want to say is that in brief i do not under estimate the importance of celebrity. you know, in california there has been one statewide republican elected since about 1994, and that was schwarzenegger. celebrity is very, very powerful. people who take politics seriously in a day-to-day way may not appreciate the extent to which seeing a familiar face
from television speaks to people. already democrats are talking about running tom hanks in 2020. [laughter] kim voss: we have another round of questions and there is one for each panelist and then a more general one. so for carole, due see any path to protect the abortion providers? to paul, is there any way to stop the ryan budget? for lawrence, do you think trump's campaign was well thought out by trump, or is he simply being himself? and then for everyone, what do you think of the efforts for recounts and the popular ote/electoral vote debate? start with carole again. carole joffee: okay. so the question is, what is the path to protect providers? well, when we think about
abortion providers and the protection they need, till very recently we were talking literally about physical attacks on them. and here is where the selection of jeff sessions becomes very problematic. when abortion providers first started being attacked and murdered starting in the 1990's , bill clinton was president. janet reno, who died literally the day -- i mean, she died on the monday of the day before the election, janet reno immediately established a task force on the protection of providers. some of you might remember in 1998 a doctor was killed in buffalo. janet reno -- he was killed on a friday night. that wednesday the director of that clinic, a colleague of mine, was summoned to washington, met with reno.
janet reno said, what do you need to keep your clinic open? and the director said, i need federal marshals to protect my doctors. and she did. and throughout her tenure as attorney general, she sent federal marshals where providers were under particular attack. that's very expensive. i mean, it has a certain amount of political cost to it, but also just having three people in shifts of eight hours each around the clock guarding people is very costly. janet reno made that commitment. it is not at all clear to me that jeff sessions, i mean, and i should say it's been since then we've had more affirmative protection of providers coming from democratic attorney generals like eric holder, who, i mean, shortly after obama was elected some of you might recall dr. george tiller was killed in kansas that spring. eric holder's response was
immediate. anyway, so how can we protect abortion providers? by -- i mean, i don't know. in other words, their physical protection has a lot to do with what an attorney general and the department of justice is willing to do. abortion providers, as my last slide showed, abortion providers are now under attack -- i mean, are now under legal attack, being subpoenaed by blackburn's committee. the democrats -- i mean, on tha have been flawless. they have -- jan schakowsky has repeatedly called for the committee to be disbanded. this committee by the way has consistently leaked the names of the doctors subpoenaed and
the fetal tissue rearchers, putting these people at physical risk. i don't know how. i mean, there are ways to make them feel not isolated. many people in their communities do clinic defense or just show up at clinics, you know, bringing notes of encouragement. how one fights marsha blackburn and jeff sessions, to be honest, i'm not prepared to say at this moment except acknowledge this is a serious problem. paul pierson: i want to sneak in one last comment about why trump won. sorry. i think a factor that is not discussed enough, though, carole made the nice point about the share of the women's vote that he received, i think in a lot of ways it's not so surprising that a lot of working class voters especially in rural areas, noncollege educated voters, especially men, voted for trump that would
respond to these kinds of appeals. it's sad to me but i think in a lot of ways not surprising. what i think caught a lot of people by surprise was how little price he paid among other republican constituencies. at the end of the day, even though 2/3 of americans said he wasn't qualified to be president almost half of them voted for him. right? i think what that suggests and this is one of the few places i think political science has been pretty good in understanding what's happening out there -- american politics especially among voters has become more and more tribal. people stick with their tribe. and so i think the clinton campaign was operating on the premise if they could just , nt this out enough times and most of their advertisements were just letting trump speak f. they could point it out enough times enough republicans would
dessert him and it could carry the day. i don't think it was a foolish strategy. i think, you know, before hand i believed it would work. but it didn't. i think we draw some implications from that. is there any way to stop the ryan budget? that is very complicated. the short answer is it depends on what parts you're talking about. a lot can be done through the reconciliation process, which means that you only need 50 votes votes, plus tends to break the tie. parents can doat is a complicated matter. i would be surprised if they are able to do a lot of that through reconciliation. be differentng to pieces of that agenda that are going to face different kinds of thresholds in the senate. some stuff can be filibustered. i does seem like -- personally do not like the filibuster. i think it makes a pretty
anti-democratic institution. in thistes good luck case, i'm not -- it promotes good luck, but i'm necessary it is there. there's quite a lot that can be done through reconciliation. finally, on recounts on the electoral college, i will just say that i don't like the fact that people are pushing for the recount. i think it's a distraction at a time when there are a lot of other things did -- pay attention to. i think it feels a downward spiral that we need to resist. on theonest, it exists left as well as the right, that all institutions are corrupt and everything is rigged. alienates people from our institutions in ways that i think are likely to be profoundly dangerous, and destabilizing.
frankly, i think this is mainly a vehicle for the green party to organize, rather than a serious intervention in electoral politics. they look at not only a lot of money they can use to organize, they will get a mailing list from doing these efforts. think the green party had been interested in donald trump not being president, then there were things he that they might have done earlier. it's also a distraction from the reality of the electoral college. i think normatively, if we believed in the idea of democracy, about citizenships and their country, it is a profoundly undemocratic institution. it is an 18th-century institution. this will be the second time in recent history when the person who won the most votes was not chosen as president, and the second time there have been all these distractions about what are essentially side issues, which i think limit our ability to have a useful conversation
about what we really think in the 21st century, that it is more important to represent wyoming's rights in the process than it is making sure this person who gets the votes of more citizens wins the office. mr. rosenthal: ok. paul mentioned the word filibuster. oneggested earlier that thing to keep one's eye on about this direction administration or republican domination of washington will go is to watch whether they change the rules of things. i think that whether the filibuster remains, or whether if its knocked out, and gets knocked out very early on, this will be a very telling indicator of which direction
things will go in. since it is kosher to say -- to throw in an addendum on the loss itthis is a side thing, but is about the discrepancy between polls and the actual election. mine,s a hypothesis of and i hope that the center for tudies, that we actually get to study this. --hink there is a good thing a good amount of the reverse bradley effect, which is to say did not regard saying i will vote for trump, as posters -- pollsters,
saying i will be looked down upon, but once the voting came around, voted for trump. i suspect that is a significant thing and i look forward to trying to develop, some data around that. me,lly, the question for did he think this stuff out, or was it personality? the personality question is enormous. campaign, and the way things will turn out going forward, there's a famous playboy interview with trump from the early 1990's in which , "you know, my
dealmaking, it's a lot more improvisational than people think." i think he brought that to the campaign. was a kind of, it could go this way or it could go that way, and many different stages. for example, one day he goes to mexico city, and has a lovely little meeting with the president of mexico. he flies back to phoenix, and offers a red meat anti-mexican speech. that is in the course of one day. with was some town hall sean hannity, in which he was asking whether they should go ahead and build the wall, asking the audience. in other words, his variability in those things is considerable,
,nd he seems to carry two sides and when one or the other side emerges, seems to be dependent beyond my comprehension. [laughter] ok, i think we are out of time. before we break up, i would like to thank christine, cynthia alvarez, and ben for doing some of the detail work here. [applause] also like to thank our sponsors, and most of all, please applaud our panelists. [applause]
in the obama administration today announced the u.s. is expelling 35 russian officials from the country, and closing to russian owned compounds in the u.s. president obama issued a statement saying in part, "the world must work together to oppose russia's efforts to undermine established international norms of behavior and interfere with democratic governance." and the reaction from house speaker paul ryan --
sunday, in-depth will feature a live discussion of the presidency of barack obama. we are taking your phone calls, tweets, knows, and discussions during the panel. our panelists include the author of "the presidency in black and white." the princeton university professor, author of a book about how race still is in the american soul, and the associate editor of the washington post, author of "barack obama, the story." watched from noon to 3 p.m. eastern sunday, c-span2. >> in a speech yesterday, secretary of state john kerry explained why the u.s. did not block the un's resolution critical of israel's continuing building of settlements in occupied land. here's a few minutes of his remarks.
secretary kerry: israel's permanent representative for the united nations who does not support, a two state solution, said after the vote last week, "it was to be expected that israel's greatest ally would act in accordance with the values that we share, and veto this resolution." i am compelled to respond today, that the united states did in fact vote in accordance with our values. just as previous u.s. administrations have done at the security council before us. they failed to recognize that this friend, the united states of america, that has done more to support israel than any other country, this friend that has blocked countless efforts to delegitimize israel, cannot you true to our own values, or even the stated democratic values of
israel, and we cannot properly defend and protect israel, if we allow a viable two state solution to be destroyed before our own eyes. that's the bottom line. the vote in the united nations was about preserving the two state solution. that's what we were standing up for israel's future. as a jewish and democratic state, living side-by-side in peace and security with its neighbors. that's what we are trying to preserve, for our sake and for there's. -- theirs. this administration has been israel's greatest friend and supporter, with an absolutely unwavering commitment to advancing israel's security and protecting its legitimacy. on this point, i want to be very clear. no american administration has done more for israel's security than barack obama's. the israeli prime minister himself has noted our
"unprecedented military intelligence cooperation." our military exercises are more advanced than ever. our assistance for iron dome has saved countless is really lives. we have consistently supported israel's right to defend itself, by itself, including during actions in gaza that sparked great controversy." time and again, we have demonstrated that we have israel's back. we have strongly opposed boycotts, investment campaign, and sanctions targeting israel in international fora. wherever and whenever its legitimacy was attacked, we have fought for its inclusion across the human system. system -- u.n. system. in the midst of our own crises, we immediately supported funding to support israel.
more than one half of our" -- entire global financial military financing ghost israel. we included a historic $38 billion memorandum of exceeds anyg that military assistance package the united states has provided to any country at any time. that will invest in cutting-edge missile defense, and sustain israel's qualitative military edge for years to come. that is the measure of our support. >> hours after secretary kerry beach in washington, israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu responded from jerusalem. he said he was disappointed at what he called a biased speech from the american secretary of state. p.m. netanyahu: before i explain why this speech was so deeply disappointing to millions of israelis i want to say israel is, deeply grateful to the
, thed states of america success of american administrations, to the american congress, to the american people. we are grateful for the support israel has received over many, many decades. our alliance is based on shared values, shared interests, a sense of shared destiny, and a partnership that has endured differences of opinions between our two governments over the best way to advance peace and stability in the middle east. i have no doubt that our alliance will enter -- and do thethis profound -- endure profound disagreement we have had with the obama administration, and become even stronger in the future. but now, i must express my deep disappointment with the speech today of john kerry. a speech that was almost as unbalanced as the anti-israel resolution passed at the u.n. last week.
about peace between israelis and palestinians, secretary kerry paid lip service to the unrelenting campaign of terrorism that has been waged by the palestinians against the jewish state for nearly a century. what he did was spent most of his speech laming israel for the lack of peace. by passionately condemning a policy of enabling jews to live in their historic homeland and in their external -- internal -- eternal capital, jerusalem. hundreds of suicide bombers, thousands of rockets, millions of israelis in bomb shelters, are not throwaway lines in a speech. they are the realities that the people of israel had to enter -- endure because of an mistake and policy.
policy.stake in i don't seek applause. i seek the security and peace, and prosperity, and the future for the jewish state. the jewish people have sought their place under the sun for 3000 years, and we are not about to be swayed by mistaken policies that have caused great, great damage. israelis do not need to be lectured about the importance of peace by foreign leaders. israel's hand has been extended in peace to its neighbors from day one, from its very first day. we pray for peace, we have worked for it every day since then. thousands of israeli families have made the ultimate sacrifice, to defend our country and advance peace. my family has been one of them. there are many, many others. no one wants peace more than the people of israel. toael remains committed
resolving the outstanding differences between us and the palestinians through direct negotiations. this is how we made peace with egypt. this is how we made peace in jordan. it's the only way we will make peace with the palestinians. that has always been israel's policy. that has always been america's policy. here's what president obama himself said at the u.n. in 2011. he said, "peace is hard work. peace will not come through statements and resolutions of the united nations. if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. " that's what president obama said. he was right. until last week, this was repeated over and over again as american policy. secretary kerry said that the united states cannot vote against its own policy, but
that's exactly what he did at the u.n. that's why israel opposed that security council resolution, because it effectively called the western wall occupied palestinian territory, because it encourages boycotts and sanctions against israel. that's what it effectively does. and because it reflects a radical shift in u.s. policy toward the palestinians on final status issues, those issues that we always agreed on have to be negotiated directly, face-to-face, without preconditions. that shift happened, despite the palestinians walking away from peace, and from peace officers, , despite the again refusal to even negotiate peace for the past eight years, and despite the palestinian authority with a culture of hatred towards israel with an entire generation of young palestinians.
israel looks forward to working with president-elect trump, and with the alert -- american congress, democrat and republicans alike, to mitigate the damage that this resolution has done, and ultimately to repeal it. the outgoingthat obama administration will prevent any more damage being done to israel at the u.n. in its waning days. i wish i could be comforted by the promise that the u.s. says we will not bring any more resolutions to the u.n. that's what they said about the previous resolution. we have it on absolutely incontestable evidence that the united states organized, advanced, and brought this resolution to the united nations security council. we will share that information with the incoming administration . some of it is sensitive. it's all true. you saw some of it in the protocol released in the
egyptian papers. this plenty more. the tip of the iceberg. they could take john kerry's , and the points could be raised in the french international conference two days from now and brought to the u.n. sweden,ill bring it, or not a noted friend of israel, could bring it. the united states can say, we can't vote against our own policy. you just enunciated it. i think the united states, if it is true to its word, or at least if it is now true to its word, should now come out and say we will not allow any resolutions, any more resolutions, in the security council on israel, period. and stopot allow any, this game, the charades.
i think the decisions that are vital to israel's interests and the future of its children, they won't be made through speeches in washington or votes in the united nations, or conferences in paris. they will be made by the government of israel around the negotiating table, making them on behalf of the one and only jewish state, a sovereign nation that is the master of its own fate. and one final thought. i personally know the pain, the loss, and the suffering of war. that's why i'm so committed to peace, because for anyone who has experienced it, as i have, war and terror are horrible i want young. palestinian children to be educated like our children for peace, but they are not educated for peace.the palestinian authority educates them to lionize
terrorists, and murder israelis here at my vision is that israelis and palestinians both have a future of mutual recognition, of dignity, mutual wrister -- respect, and coexistence, but the palestinian authority tells them they will never accept and should never accept the existence of a jewish state. so i ask you, how can you make peace with someone who rejects your very existence? this conflict is not about houses our communities in the district, ore gaza anywhere else. this conflict is and has always been about israel's very right to exist. that's why my hundreds of calls forit with president abbas peace talks have gone unanswered. has's why my invitation never been answered. that's why the palestinian
government continues to pay anyone who murders israelis a monthly salary. the persistent palestinian refusal to recognize a jewish state remains the core of the conflict, and its removal is the key to peace. palestinian rejection of israel and support for terror are with the nations of the world should focus on, if they truly want to advance peace. my regret andress say that it is a shame that secretary kerry does not see this simple truth. thank you. >> the obama administration today announced the u.s. is expelling 35 russian officials in the country, and closing to russian owned compounds in the u.s. president obama issued a statement saying in part --
>> representative charlie wrangle, democrat of new york, 86 years old, 23 terms in the house. that is 46 years. when did you decide this would be your last term? i never thought about it. it's been around three years ago. i went to a local hospital for what they call a procedure that was supposed to take a few hours. i got a spinal infection, a virus. i was in intensive care for outdoor -- i don't know how long . it was the first time i can , i was totally alone. i thought about my wife, the kids, all these things. my wife was telling me these this -- i said, why
didn't you tell me this, like it was so exciting? and she said, "i knew your commitment before we got married. i knew your passion, i knew you were good at what you do. i was uncertain i should give you an alternative." i love my wife, but i felt so awkward. it seemed like being so selfish. i knew then. so, i didn't have enough time to , and it tookdidate two and a half years. but i can say that the rest of my life is to make my wife happy. is selfish, because it will make me happy again, but the kids and grandkids are doing different things.
quite frankly, i was so close to that category of this kid can never succeed, and that g.i. bill. that g.i. bill and my wife opened myself to a world that nobody in my family or community knew. i'm going to have so much fun trying to see how many kids, whichy wife's permission, she has given to raise money for them. and to raise money by going out to the private sector and giving talks, but only go places that my wife would want to go. i don't think i can lose. you?: and that is next for what exactly will you be doing? rep. rangel: i was approached by several agencies and that said they
would like politicians, what was it really like, what caused impeachments -- i said, no. they said, you better ask your wife about this. they show the different places that these people have in conventions. there were places on our bucket list that we wanted to see. they are willing to pay me, and i'm saying, that's the last thing i need, a lot of problems with taxes. the city college of new york is right on a hill, but overlooking harlan. -- harlem. since i was a kid, i thought it was a church. nobody told me that was where you go to get an education. at the same time, i was reading an a local newspaper, that kids
tuition a $6,000 a year . $6,000. that's because the mean income was $35,000 of their parents. between the speaking agency, the fees of service, the kids, and they want to make a replica of my congressional office so the kids can come in, and i can tell , and there's no salary involved, but, like i said, if the wife says it makes sense, i owe her big-time. greta: you have been here for 46 years. why did you decide to run? d remember why you decided to run in the first time? rep. rangel: you don't want to hear all of that. i was in the state assembly for four years. i was happy then.
we only were in session three months a year. i was helpful in getting a very important guy a judgeship, and he was helpful in saying i would join a law firm. i called my wife and i said, we have made it now. i got into so and so's law firm, i got his clients, and everything. but then the cost of being in , governorly rockefeller was giving a lecture to members of the assembly. said, governor, you can go to congress, but i wish you would let my congressman go back home. that's another story. he left the district, he left the country. i learned, never try to be a wiseguy, if you are not in
control of the mic. he said, assemblyman, if you can bring your congressmen back go and welcome that you we move the criminal sanctions, because we need to have a new york state just as bad as you want your congressmen back. i tried to make it clear to congressman powell that the last thing in the world i wanted to do was go south to go to washington dc. being in albany almost part-time, but a law firm , and i'm beginning to learn what life was all about. he finished embarrassing me in front of my wife, patting me on the cheek, i knew that i had no choice.
kept me waiting, my wife and i waiting for around 12 hours. he ridiculed me. -- i waselt that trying to time, it was six people running. i would be in trouble if one of people won, because i'm supporting him, which made me for years apart if the machine -- of the machine. i was only there for four years. iran, and about six people ran. i got about 500 votes. , had a good wife, we .idn't know what the hell to do a friend of mine who later became governor was a member of congress. he said to my wife, whatever you do, you bring the family here, because he lost family, friends, and everything. just -- had just
passed. i guess that should answer that question, because it was exciting. what would you say your legislative achievements has been over thiese years? rep. rangel: that question is asked so many times. it's almost like saying what was the best day of a 50 year marriage? i can to you this. i never had a really bad day that i regretted running for congress. i never had a day that i really felt i couldn't make a positive , and i never found that i ran out of challengers. when nelson mandela got out of jail, he called it the bloody wrangle amendment, because so
many white south africans called and in the u.s. trends, if you want to stay in south africa, you have to pay united states to his, and they left. when it came to the commonsense thing that no american should work 40 hours a week and get paid and still be in poverty, we were able to create the income tax credit and say, no, we will give you a check for your commitment. most of the housing we have for low income was an initiative. i can't tell you, to work with a president like clinton, to get a bill passed for communities like , providing substance for people. so being in the last place, being in the leadership, being in a majority, being able to say someone should do something, and
people saying that someone constantly, you come here every day with the hopes -- and of course, the atmosphere was different. as i look over the photographs now, it is hard for us to remember sometimes, who was the republican and who was the democrat. they were friends and we worked together. i remember he and tip o'neill protected the rights of the republican senior number. -- member. differententirely atmosphere. and the best part of my life. you were named the first african-american to serve as chairman of the ways and means committee. one of the key committees in the house. overseeing taxes.
what do you think your legacy will be on the ways and means committee? rep. rangel: everything that i , and also when they talked about the affordable care , it was under my chairmanship of ways and means. named the congressmen that had more bills signed into law than anybody else in congress. but that is because i chaired the committee, and we were able to get so many things done together -- republicans and democrats -- most of the time. so, it was awesome. and people would say, "charlie, when you get that job they are going to come after you." and that couldn't have been bottom of my feeling about
politics except, when the final story is told and is public, you didn't steal any money, you paid your taxes. but when you are trying to raise money for those kids, you ignored the fact that you could not use the paper that had the picture of the eagle in the united states congress. you should have used stationary that had the capitol of the united states congress. you know how many times you did that? thousands of times. you know how many laws that would break? you mailed each one, violating the law, asking people for money to do it. when the question was asked, i didn't even attend the hearing. one democrat asked, "what is the worst thing that congressman rangel did?" he said, "his people did not
keep good books and he was just too active in trying to raise money for those kids." this is not a press release, this is the public record. we fought the thing to the supreme court. there was no question that the way things went where you were not allowed to call witnesses and all those things, it's undemocratic. but the supreme court said, "whatever the house of representatives would do, it did not have to be fair or equitable, that due process is part of the constitution but it does not concern itself with the house of representatives." how could you exclude the taking away of reputation and say that due process ends?
because we have the separation. they don't tell us what to do, and we don't tell them what to do. so, my lawyer said, if it was kangaroo court, that they just wanted him, it was just going to get him for reasons that were totally unfair. the court was blind to whatever they say, when they know it is up to them to select their membership. greta: you are referring to the house censuring you for ethics violations? rep. rangel: yes. greta: any regrets about the choices that you made? any regrets? rep. rangel: i should have known the difference between the stationary that you use when you are soliciting. it never entered my mind if i was soliciting for the college of the city of new york, not for me. it was a public college. what regrets could i have had? yes, i should have said, "before i send out these letters, would
you please approve it?" i should not have had confidence in the people that normally take care of putting it together. but i don't have any regrets about my intent. said,ke the prosecutor sloppiness is something that there's no one in the world i could have blamed anyone for. i'm the guy that signed the letters. greta: according to observers you could have gotten a minor punishment from the committee. rep. rangel: yes. i was wrong. i could have, yes. but first of all, i was the one that called for the hearing. i was the one they called for a forensic examination for 20 years of my taxes and conduct. it took them years before they ime to a conclusion, and
would challenge them on the floor and say, whatever you got, just bring it out so i can clear my name. they said, "you want us to bring it out? we will bring it out." but i certainly would have negotiated if i knew that they would have had blinders on and knew that they were complete, in charge of the process. i just could not believe you can have a constitution and just due process is taken out of the member's rights to determine the content of its members. but let me make it abundantly clear. members had to vote on the censure. they voted during a political time. i was in the news as someone that was being censured, and they had to vote on it.
the question became, like for my sister -- my predecessor when they kicked him out of congress, and i came down here and i found nobody was angry with adam. how the hell did he get kicked out? they loved adam. but they love themselves more. they were not thinking about going back home, explaining to their voters at the time they were up for election that they condoned in any way adam's conduct. while they started off defending me, the closer the election came, the more people would believe that -- what do you want to do? protect charlie rangel or get reelected? i have never had to make that decision, but i could not get angry with somebody. because most people who had no
election problems, they were with me, and nobody in the congress -- when they hung my picture up, all the republicans were there. former speakers, past speakers, they all said what a wonderful guy i was, and, even today, no one would ever think about saying my conduct brought any shame to anybody. greta: we are talking about the ways and means committee library. your picture hangs in the committee room. rep. rangel: people were there from both parties talking about what a great member i was. greta: what will you miss about congress? rep. rangel: what i would miss, i have already missed -- i don't know whether this comes back in my lifetime. the camaraderie. to be able to say that you have a job -- if you want to call it that, because i never looked at it that way. where people said that in this great country we have got to
pick 435 people that don't look alike, have different backgrounds, came to this country in different ways, and the only thing they have in common is that they love this country. and they want this country to be great. that in a few hundred years, they allowed people who look like you to go from slavery to the highest court in the land and you are part of that. your job is to learn about what these other americans are thinking so that we can get a fair shake in this great country. what concept -- i don't see how these guys screwed it up, -- thought it up, quite frankly. they screwed it up on electoral college, but other than that, to have a constitution where they weren't even thinking about people of color, weren't thinking about women, weren't thinking about poor people, but it had the elasticity to build
and to grow and even today, i do not think it has been tested the way it has been in this last presidential election, somebody was money gets 2 million votes than somebody else and they lose, it has to be hard to explain that. i put it in a bill with senator boxer, to get rid of the electoral college, only because people should understand that things have changed since that document was written. we ought to constantly review the parts that don't make sense and keep the parts that allowed us to have such a great nation. >> what won't you miss? what will you not miss about congress? rep. rangel: well, if they were really trying to chase me out politically -- if they were saying the whole thing is going
to be a nightmare your party is , not going to win the house or the senate, and you will not believe the republican they selected for the presidency. and republicans won't talk with democrats and democrats won't talk with republicans. as you are taping, there's someone who just said they wanted to impeach the commissioner of the internal revenue service, when we only have a couple of days left in session. i have been through the impeachment in 1974 with president nixon, how can you end this term and impeach? i am not going to miss that. i'm not going to miss how people just want to be mean when they don't really believe that they can do anything. how they can vote 60 times to repeal a bill knowing that it is not going to work. no, ever since i had been here, people who have fought hard and
worked hard -- i told a guy today, "since you have been here, i don't even know whether you passed a bill. but you fought for the things you believe in, that you knew it was possible for you to do it. i would hate to be in your shoes today." and he grabbed and hugged me, because he didn't mind being a loser as long as he knew he was doing the right thing. he knew it was possible. but democrats and republicans will say now it makes good sense for the country, and i'm going to support that. now, he knows that as long as he is in this congress, republicans are not going to let him see the light of day for his ideas. that is painful. that is painful to tell that to a representative of 600,000 or 700,000 people. greta: you have worked with many
presidents over the years. which ones stand out to you, and why? rep. rangel: i wish really, i , was here when president lyndon johnson was here. i worked for him partially when i was counsel to the select committee. but more importantly than that, i have so many prejudices. one of them was accents. i didn't even know i had an accent when i came here. i thought everyone else had an accent. with the south, even though i married a southerner, when i heard lyndon johnson say that we shall overcome, talking with the congress, i could not believe i was in america. i marched from selma to montgomery with john lewis, and i never, never, never believed
that the supreme court would ever, ever allow voting rights and all those things. i would have loved to have known or talked with lyndon johnson. but, i guess it is who you have the closest relationship with, and that would have been bill clinton. when i was chairman, i had the first bill that dealt with trade to africa. i had the empowerment zone and so many other things. so, it has never been that i been a buddy to the president, because the situation socially never presented itself. but lyndon johnson, i really don't believe gets the credit for the political courage he had when he passed these voting rights acts knowing that it
would hurt his party and save this great nation. greta: when you think back over the years, tell us a story that you are fond of telling constituents or other people about what happens up here on capitol hill. rep. rangel: well, one of the stories would be when bill clinton said he was considering the empowerment zone bill. and he wanted me to come over to go over some of the details. i thought i could make an impression if i didn't go over there with staff or notes. so, for hours, and for days, and for nights, i studied this complex piece of legislation. i was so exhausted when the time came for me to go, but i stood
tall and said, "mr. president, i am ready to discuss this outstanding piece of historic legislation." he had all of these people, with -- especially some that are still a part of government, with him. he asked where my staff was. i told him, "i don't have staff." he looked at me and dismissed the staff. i sat down, ready for the first question, and he says "how do you think hillary is going to do in new york for the u.s. senate?" [laughter] i almost died, because totally unrelated to the empowerment zone bill. i had been able to recruit hillary clinton to run against a politician that was running for the senate. that it would have pained me.
if he had won. do you know what his name was? rudolph giuliani. that was my local nightmare. every democrat was saying, "don't you have a candidate? why can't we get a candidate?" and so, i was in chicago and she gave a speech. i said, "you know, we need you in new york." and before i remember what i said someone asked, "you mean , that?" when i get the idea that she would even entertain it, i would have said a regular labor meeting. they said, "what do we have to do now?" hillary clinton was the candidate, but we did not have hillary clinton. i said, what if? they said, that would be different.
i reported back to hillary. they said, "well, you have the congressional delegation." i told them -- i said, labor would support hillary clinton, would you? and they said, you don't have hillary clinton. but they must know something, they said they would support her, and and so would we. i reported that. then we had an association of businessmen that would meet once a month. i gave a talk to them. i said, our backs are against the wall. labor has ideas, congressional has ideas, people have ideas, but we have to raise money. we need people who truly believe rudolph giuliani is not the person to represent us in the united states senate. i said that these people want hillary clinton.
it was bigger than me. it was bigger than life. my god, she was such a great united states senator. it was how all of these things were so totally unrelated. so, when people say -- she is responsible for this, and bill clinton says, "my wife did not have the slightest idea of going into politics until charlie rangel talked her into going into politics." it is like my wife said, i was just begging her for seven years to marry me. but as long as it worked out. [laughter] greta: what do you think your legacy will be on new york
politics, in representing the harlem district? rep. rangel: having the ability to have the support of the people, to really be able to say what was on their mind, and not have the burden of thinking my constituents allowed me to talk out against the war in trade, to trade, to do to deal with the pain in haiti and negotiate trade agreements in africa, to support the korean people after the war and knew all the time that i could produce for them because i was broadening the base of my support. think they will remember that they trusted me and i couldn't have done any of those things
unless i knew they had my back. and it was a great relationship and it buildup over a period of time. it staggers when a guy is telling me and he's 50 years old and he says you know, you are the only congressman i have ever known in my life. and a woman said i never had a choice. know ut, the ability to that at 86, i cannot think of one bad day and at 86, have the opportunity to try to make my life better by making my wife, kids and grandkids better and all the bunch of kids out there that may think and i can get
hem to just to take the and find out where's the key to open up that door. if they don't believe they are going to be accepted, what do they have to lose? and one of the things that i'm most proud of is i have the rangel international scholarship program with the state department. when i first came to congress in 1971. the forecasts in the embassy
would see me and ask me which congressman did i work for. it was a handful -- they had never seen a black congressperson and i knew then and my wife knew then that it was the interests of the united states of america that our embassies looked like the united states of america. and i talked every secretary of state and i would give them a hard time and this is before mexico become a power, before frican diplomats grew. and finally between the secretaries of states and colin, moore and rice and what not, they started a program they would send kids to get advanced degrees but they would train to be foreign service officers and i would go around the world and
some kid is following me and i wonder what's wrong with them and they say they are a rangel scholar. and believe me, i don't care what exposure you have as an american, you don't know what this world is about until you lived in other people's shoes and seeing other people's cultures and foods and what not. visit a essmen country, the embassy normally dinner for them and they would take the wives out to see them and at the end of the day and say how did your day go? and they would say, the nicest people led me around and you
have to bring your spouse to the reception and we would smile. and you had no what that husband or wife looked like. these people are overseas and forget who they are. they just become human beings of the world that have fallen in love and it's amazing to see how getting out of the prejudice that have built up, prejudice of hate and prejudice that emphasize differences and to go to see the -- without the barriers that every one of these.
as the strongest nation in the world, and one that the world is depending on, if we can only get that idea out that it does not really make any difference what your color is, it is your character is really what counts. we are moving in that direction. but not even when president obama, who i really believe is the best president we have ever had, there was a little hope that i thought that this would make a hell of a difference. but the last election proved it eally did not. host: is that his fault? rep. rangel: heck no. heck no. to be able to last a second term in eight years with the environment that existed in the last election -- it would not surprise me if he could walk on water. i do not see how he did it. no, it is not his fault. i cannot think of one thing that he could've done that would improve the race relationship in
his country. if i had to find fault, it would be with our spiritual leaders. because they would allow me to believe that they deal with a higher source. if all of us are made in god's image, they ought to really talk about that more. if saint matthews, which is in all of these spiritual -- it is in the koran, it's in the old and new testament, it's in the torah.
it all says how do you treat your fellow man. do you feel his pain when he is sick, when he's hungry, when he's naked, when he is in rison? that is how you should treat people. every religious person says that is how our maker wanted it. and that's why there is all these sparkling different cultures and colors, which makes you say what a beautiful job he did. politicians have no mandate to follow that wonderful thought. but with all that we have, with people killing each other all over the world, drones flying, people starving, remove health insurance, problems of the homeless all over the world, i cannot think of one priest, one minister, one rabbi, one imam who is saying, "in the beginning, don't you remember?" and that is sad because, we
carry such a political burden not to lose our constituents in heir place of worship. host: founding member of the congressional black caucus. has the cbc had an impact on race relations in the country? what are its victories? rep. rangel: well, let's say this. getting back to the constitution, and one man, one vote allowed us to become a little closer to equity. so therefore, the nine black embers of congress, that i had joined then to make it 13. it was then that we said, collectively, we can be a major force of influence, rather than individually. and that it would make no difference what part of the country that we came from.
basically, we had the same problem. you could walk into any town or village, and they would not ask you whether you were from mississippi or whether you were rom new york city. when we come together collectively, and have a voice to say about anything, people may not look at our colors and say, oh, black is beautiufl. but they sure look at the votes. this is one place where one man, ne vote means something. even in areas where no one asks us how we feel, before people start thinking about what we can do in the house, they now have to think about how are we going to get these 45 votes. they may not say black, they may resent black. but the same way that people talk about things concerning ireland or israel or other parts
of this world, they know that we come here with the instincts of having a concern. because we are not just one homogeneous group of people. and to be able -- i used to tell people that, when i was chair of the congressional black caucus, i would have meetings, and they would say, "mr. chairman, what is the agenda?" i said we do not have an agenda, but as long as it scares them, ut we meet every week. and every time we analyze a ill, we have to be able to say -- he had the powell amendment where he would vocally say, and it has to be free of discrimination. we now say, shouldn't it be coming out of the committee unless you are certain you can do this without democratic votes? and so, any bill that we have passed, we are proud of. whether deals with housing or health care or opportunity,
women's rights, gay rights, if it is moral. and i am not saying that we are more moral than anyone else. that we call ourselves the conscious of the congress. but the truth of the matter is that these are basic american ideas. and everyone where someone may say that this is the right thing to do, you can bet we were their leadership or we were supportive, or they could not do it without us. it is unfortunate that, today, it is how many votes have you got for impeachment. how many votes have you got to repeal, and you know you cannot do it? how many votes do you have just to make mischief, show who you are, rather than how can we get together and, just for one inch more, make us work together and make the country better.
but the governors and the state legislators who said we would rather have all blue -- that is all democratic states and congressional districts -- or the republicans who said, we would rather have all red. what does that mean? it means that, if democrats start speaking differently than the people in that district, they are going to be challenged by democrats. and republicans that tried to be fair have challenged and lost in the primaries. that is something that we have to think about, where people can do and say the right thing without fear that they will lose in a political scene. host: finally, congressman, what is your advice to be successful in congress? if a freshman is looking at a 46 year career, what is the key to be successful?
rep. rangel: young people can't look at you because you are old, and they say give me some dvice. the one thing that has kept me going -- i have written a book about it and i have not had a bad day since. behind the book is that a 20-year-old guy finds himself in korea, 20 below zero, shot, left for dead, and praying in latin and tongue that if anyone is home, please give me a break. i promise to you, if you can just give me out of this, i will devote my life to trying to do everything right. there is the odds against me surviving this, and november 30, 950 can bring tears to my eyes
to see how people were captured, wounded, and killed by tens of thousands of chinese. we were completely urrounded. but i survived. and every time i think i am having a setback, somehow i survived. there is so much for me to be blessed and happy about. then this thing that is about to tear me apart. when i lost my brother soon after i was elected, i was ready to talk to god. this guy was my best friend, my campaign manager. a father, was 52 years old, he had three kids. before i could complain, someone reminded me of how many people have never had a brother, a friend, or a buddy like that? and i lost my mom, and, before i could scream out -- 94 years old, and you got a complaint?
and believe me, i have been able to see people that have been able to say that before you even think about complaining, just start thinking about how blessed you are. and if that does not work, just think again. because the fact that you know that you have blessings cuts the problem in half. but the more you think about the problem, it doesn't go away. but your ability to not talk about misery and pain but think about solutions. and i don't know how long it was after november 30, 1950, but now i just don't even think about it. if you would have asked how many people do you have on your enemies list, i cannot think of anybody that i thought enough about that i was going to take my time to make him or her --
well, my wife may have her list about people i should remember -- but i tell freshmen that if you think you have a problem with this congress, why don't you start thinking about how the hell you got in congress and how lucky and fortunate you are that you recognize you have a problem. and there has to be other opportunities and challenges. so, they talk about the president-elect to me. i say think about those slaves. you know? they did not know who was taking them or selling them. their own people were selling them. they did not know where they were going. half of them died. then they got here, and they could not assimilate. they got lynched, you could not vote. people would just shoot you in the streets. and you are in the congress, where you can do something about these things? so, the advice i give is take a deep breath. just take a deep breath.
and reward yourself with the idea that you know that you have a problem. host: congressman charlie rangel, thank you for your time. rep. rangel: thank you so much for this interview. cable satellite corp. 2016] national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org] our all-day live coverage from capitol hill begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org or listen to the free c-span radio app. >> representative john mica, republican of florida. you are coming to the end of the term. what has the adjustment been
like for you to realize that you will not be coming back to congress? rep. mica: i have enjoyed every minute. very few individuals have had the incredible opportunity. the seventh district of florida, but serving congress promise a quarter of a century. in addition to that i got to serve five years of the chief of staff in the u.s. senate. four years in the florida legislator and four years in local government. i have had an incredible career. in addition, i have also been in business for 20 years. great career, both in the private sector and in public service. i have enjoyed every minute of it. >> your years here, a lot spent in this room. the transportation infrastructure committee room. you were the chairman from 2011 until 2013, before that, serving as the top republican. what is the legacy you think you will have? what imprint on this committee?
rep. mica: i have enjoyed being on the committee, the transportation committee since the day i came to congress 24 years ago. i was a developer in the private sector. i always joke, here you could do projects with opm, other people's money. i had the opportunity to not only help build an infrastructure. rebuilding the interstate setting, setting up the legislation to allow that public, private partnership. the first commuter rail transit system in central florida. projects that will double the capacity of our major airport. then build an airport from basically an abandoned field in the northern part of the district. some of those projects excite me.
across the country, to impact washington, d.c. the biggest project i am proud of is the capital district center. the history of the capital building, 580,000 square feet. from the atlantic to the pacific, whether the projects in new york of the east site, which will be $11 billion to connect. eventually jfk with the long sland railroad, and down underneath the manhattan, grand central station, all the way out to san francisco where we did $2.4 billion intermodal center to miami where we completely connected all of the systems. the tri-rail and the metro ail. we have the opportunity to impact the infrastructure and of our community on a larger scale.
whether it was my district or from sea to shining sea. >> how did the idea come about? rep. mica: when i got elected, i am a history buff. i went over to the library of congress and saw a lot of books, papers and artifacts that are never shown. we had no place to show them/. i saw the capital building and people standing in the rain, the snow, the cold. there was only a half a dozen restrooms and the facility built 100 years ago. i started it, the democrats were not too inclined to move forward. newt gingrich helped with the deal with the money that was helped to raise. the other portion would be paid for by the tax. we were balancing the budget at the time in 1997.
my bill was heard in the committee room. we came a long way, we built into. we did in incredible job. it is an awesome structure. it is for the people. the rest of it is for the members of congress and it is a working historic holding. i've proud of that addition to the u.s. capitol. >> what was the cost? rep. mica: originally it was $100 million. later we had 9/11. we would only open 60% of it. they set for about 80 million we ould open the whole thing. i insisted on excavating every square inch. you do not dig up the front of the capitol that often. that upped the cost. the tunnel was for service of the large service vehicles that would pick up the garbage.
that does not take place anymore. so it was about $620 million, which seems like a lot of money, but today, a billion dollars just to renovate the canon office building and older executive buildings. it was a good deal for the taxpayers. it is built to not just be a drop ceiling and drywall venue. this is something generations can be proud of, and millions of americans come here now. they can see the artifacts, they are accommodated. it is their capital, and i am proud of it. >> you do seem proud. rep. mica: to me it is an absolute joy. impacting the district, little things took me some years. union station. you used to have to go to a greyhound station several blocks away, grab your luggage.
they said you cannot fit all of it. a bus carriers are all on the econd floor. we made that truly intermodal if ou go down the street, the trump hotel did two hearings there and the vacant post office. where we did the hearings in february was the first we did after. it was vacant for 15 years. 400,000 square foot holding, half of it empty, costing the taxpayers between two and $6 million a year. lights are glowing, it is employing hundreds of people. it is a great success story. the cotton exchange, you can see the for sale sign. largest piece of property in washington. up in georgetown, the power plant. it will be hundreds of millions of dollars in development and
jobs in that location. across the nation's capital, and in my own state of florida, i got in may to turn over to my alma mater in miami. i worked at miami-dade community college. and imagine giving them the old federal courthouse is a legacy. i did it i guess it was in june of this year, to give to the president. a federal building that is vacant, causing $2 million, going to my mama motter. -- going to my alma mater. preserved and then going to my almat mater. cool. >> anything you did not accomplish? rep. mica: there are some things underway. the privatization of air traffic control.
and the current chairman is doing a good job of moving that forward. you look at what is available around the world. we got the unions and others to look at navcanada. it is just a step of head of us n the operation. the technology, so, and traffic control modernization, privatization is up. in the next generation, air traffic control is very important. we have not been back since i left aviation that is taking us from a ground-based to a space system and that technology if we also leading the cap administration, we will get that in place, making our aviation system very safe. it is very safe now because of some of the things i did as hairman.
every week, things were scheduled, the first week in, then chicago. we do not do that. we stopped that. we do it on a risk-based system and since then we have not had an incident. commuter, a number of crashes there. we did a commuter airline and we had charlotte, the buffalo, all of those commuter crashes. it has cleaned up the safely. a lot of things we have done but we can go further. i got into rail as you probably heard. ur passenger system, passenger rail system, at least i'm on the republican side of the aisle of public transit but in the last
transportation bill that passed, i said, all this time and we get the northeast toward her privatized. i call it our train system and it is still basically government-run. now this administration coming in, we have a chance to start some remarkable service in the ortheast corridor. the senate agreed to put in provisions, surprise it has three money-losing long-distance ommuter rails. now, we will work on it with mr. oberstar, the first in a decade of amtrak, we put in a northeast corridor and they can help run that but that was hijacked by mtrak. now we can move out of that and bring america into the 21st
century of transportation and that will be exciting because we are so far behind the rest of the world. that is something that is not white done that needs to be first decided to run for office. why? representative mica: i had a teacher that made government and public service, alive, and since then i have been a political junkie. i was very successful in business which allowed me to serve without any obligations, and i just relied on public services as a vocation. so it has been no only an avocation, but an opportunity to